It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
As long as they don't kill him off..
Phew! So they don t have a child after all, they just won a doll at the tivoli or something.
:))
And so were the older Bond movies, unless someone really believes that Connery and Brosnan played the same character in the same continuity who magically rejuvenated after A View To A Kill.
Any shamanimal will do.
It's the same character as in "it's always James Bond", they're not different people who were assigned the 007 title. But they're not set in the same continuity because Bond would be 70+ years old in DAD.
So is Daniel Craig playing the same character/person as Brosnan, or is it a different character/person?
Do yourselves a favour and stop thinking about continuity, outside the Craig films.
Craig is playing the same character as the other actors. His stories are more connected than those of the other actors. That’s all there really is to it.
Sorry, I've edited.
So if Craig's Bond dies, and then the series carries on, that works in a way that if Connery's Bond died, Roger Moore's Bond wouldn't have worked.
Because Craig's Bond created a seperate, erm ... Universe?
You can see why I don't watch much sci-fi, can't you?
And being the same Bond character, all the Bond actor iterations have the Casino Royale experience in their background. It's cooked in.
All the Craig Bond film content, not so much I should add.
Then any story line with any danger or threat, means nothing if the character we're being asked to invest emotion in, can just 're-invent', or 're-boot'.
And if it's not the same character, then how do we define that character?
The film needs to contain its own stakes. The film contains its own story.
What you’re saying is, no character death in the history of cinema means anything, because anyone can come along and make a film with that character again. Not so; every film (even the ones connected to other films) must still contain their own stakes and story.
The character of Bond is defined by how he acts in different situations, and by a certain set of characteristics that define his character; orphan, killer, suave sophisticated secret agent and all that.
And you define the character by what the actor whose playing him and what that continuity presents. Craig isn't defined by anyone else's era but his own because he did his own thing with it and had his own narrative, just as we define each of the others Bonds by each of their performances. We're just free to talk about the other Bond's arc because they were all connected, whereas Craig's isn't.
Connery/Moore
Lazenby/Moore
Lazenby/Dalton
Dalton/Brosnan
Any other combination needs you to ignore one or more aspects of the films.
It's like I'm Charlton Heston on the Planet of the Apes here today.
Does nobody else on here think this idea of the cinematic James Bond dying and then the series carrying on as if nothing has happened, is total billy bollocks?
Oh, completely. Hate the idea. I won't pay to see a Bond film where Bond dies.
You’re not wrong, it isn’t a great idea for a franchise to kill the main character; I’m just saying it wouldn’t be the end of the world. It isn’t like the MCU where all the stories are linked in a linear way; in that case, bringing Iron Man back would have more of the effect you describe. But even then, it wouldn’t make Endgame bad.
Yes. I think people really just need to throw away the concept of continuity between Bond films. Would it have made sense for Bond to die in Skyfall and come back for Spectre? No. Would it make sense for Bond to die at the end of Craig’s tenure and have a new actor come and tell new Bond stories? Why not?
I've sometimes thought, a franchise with a Bond-like character who, throughout the films/episodes/whatever, died just as often as succeeded. Then, in each entry, you truly wouldn't know if he would get out of his current predicament or not. Edge of your seat stuff. ;)
This young lady - Emanuela Coletta - is listed as a stunt woman on NTTD's IMDB-page, and she was working in Matera.
The fight training was filmed at Riva Dei Ginepri Beach Club, the same place Cary, Lea, Linus, Ana chilled at during production. The sparring partner is Gabriele Ragusa, stunt performer, also listed on NTTD.
Why not? Because in the previous film, erm... James Bond died.
I'm saying, the stories of the two wouldn't be linked. In the same way the stories of Moonraker and Diamonds Are Forever aren't linked.
Would it be the worst thing in the world if EON produced a Bond film with a new actor and a new director, both just doing the one film, and he died? And then new talent came on and did the next one, totally unrelated to the last?
I mean, at the end of the day, you have nothing to worry about; they're never going to kill Bond. All I'm saying is story always must come first, in this or any franchise or non franchise film, and if the story they want to tell involves the death of Bond, they shouldn't feel limited in their storytelling capacity because of factors that don't pertain to the specific story being told in that specific film.